quote Originally posted by Phranc: I love how everyone thinks the oil companies don't invest their money.

They do invest. The question is should they be allowed to invest in oil futures.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Food is a local or regional thing--gold silver, oil and gas are set on a global market, which has no bearing in regards to our weak dollar or our inflation rate. A stronger dollar might increase our buying power a bit, but the world spots would be the same +- a tiny bit.

Hmm?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7101050.stm

"They [the US] get our oil and give us a worthless piece of paper,"

If we had a non fiat currency, everything would be 25% cheaper since 2000. The CPI went from 168 to 214.
http://www.bls.gov/CPI/

$3 a gallon without even trying! That's as good as tapping our reserves, without spending a penny!

Nope, we would be able to buy more of everything for a dollar, but the world price would still be the same. We might influence the benchmark price a bit with a stronger dollar, but no more than a few dollars/bbl at best.

Gasoline here in the states may be a bit different, but I am not sure about that either. For a $10 drop on the world oil price, gas generally just drops a few cents/gal--a nickel or 2.

quote Originally posted by AP2k: This to a million. Ethanol is the best bet we have with out current solar and fusion technologies. There are loads of other plants to use rather than corn that produces many times as much ethanol. All the corn subsidies are doing is encouranging farmers to plant even more of a crop that is murdering the environment because of its irrigation and fertilization requirements. We need to stop this asinine corn boondoggle and fund everything from it into switchgrass, algal, and jatropha research. Throw the corn husks and cobs back into the field to replenish the land. At least the three I mention need little fertilization and are weeds and pond scum.

Ethanol is a waste. Too much energy used to produce it, not enough BTUs per unit, resulting in a net low overall efficiency. I'd much rather see large scale production of biodiesel, which can be used directly in current technology diesel engines, and home heating units, etc.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Nope, we would be able to buy more of everything for a dollar, but the world price would still be the same.

Well yes, but in 8 years the cost of everything has gone up 25% in the US. That's like getting a demotion and a pay cut.

If we fixed this runaway inflation, we could buy more with the money we have. Oil would still be 85 Euros/bbl as it is now, but it would also be $100/bbl.

BTW, more good news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/..._bi_go_ec_fi/economy

I think we should cut interest rates some more and try to hit $300/bbl.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: Ethanol is a waste. Too much energy used to produce it, not enough BTUs per unit, resulting in a net low overall efficiency. I'd much rather see large scale production of biodiesel, which can be used directly in current technology diesel engines, and home heating units, etc.

Corn ethanol is a waste, but not all processes are. Brazil uses sugar cane and its transportation and fuel processing infrastructure is almost completely powered with ethanol. Corn produces at best 1.5:1 energy out to input. Sugar cane produces 8:1 and sorgum, which China will be using to make ethanol, makes 6:1.

Biodiesel is vastly superior, but we don't have the gumption to switch to it. Plus you can get lots more power out of ethanol because it burns faster. A fast-buning fuel will still have a place.

quote Originally posted by AP2k: Biodiesel is vastly superior, but we don't have the gumption to switch to it. Plus you can get lots more power out of ethanol because it burns faster. A fast-buning fuel will still have a place.

True enough. What about Methanol? I don't know how it compares to Ethanol in terms of BTU/Unit, but I know it runs in my R/C planes and cars nicely :-)

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-04-2008).]

quote Originally posted by dsnover: True enough. What about Methanol? I don't know how it compares to Ethanol in terms of BTU/Unit, but I know it runs in my R/C planes and cars nicely :-)

It's actually nitromethanol that the rc stuff uses. Not quite the same as wood alcohol.

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: That 30 billion is a totally ficticious number; more like 7-10 billion actually paid. Most is deferred from one year to the next ad nauseum.

I *knew* someone would try that argument.

From the above linked article...

Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion

Corporate profits receive a lot of media attention, but what receives considerably less attention are the corporate taxes paid on corporate profits. Do a Google search for "Exxon profits" and you'll get about 8,000 hits. Now try "Exxon taxes" and you'll get a little more than 300 hits. That's a ratio of about 33 to 1.

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!

[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.]

Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

======================

Notice it says "payment" or "pays" or "paid". Not would, could, or should. Taxes PAID.

That fact should piss off a few liberals.

Depends exactly what you're looking at. If you black box the whole entity and look at totals, they paid a whopping 105.7 billion in all taxes total in '07. That's 27.1% of their income of 390 billion.

I wish I could get away with paying out only 27.1% of my total income in taxes.

I'm not saying they pay too much or too little or anything else. But 27% is not anything to cry foul about.

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: Depends exactly what you're looking at. If you black box the whole entity and look at totals, they paid a whopping 105.7 billion in all taxes total in '07. That's 27.1% of their income of 390 billion. I wish I could get away with paying out only 27.1% of my total income in taxes. I'm not saying they pay too much or too little or anything else. But 27% is not anything to cry foul about.

It's not crying foul or anything like it. It's simply the truth - the so called "rich who don't pay any taxes"...is a myth. They and corporations pay almost ALL the taxes in this country.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Source? Seems like a large coincidence they all end in "0". Must be like winning the lottery. Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/...e_us_cons_sector.htm 2/3 of oil goes to transportation use. 20% goes to industrial uses (which includes PLASTICS... Thank the bottle water drinkers for your high gas prices). And some minuscule percent goes to electricity and heating. So no, oil doesn't break down like you think, and we're already using coal, nuclear, and renewable energy for electricity. Oil doesn't play into it. Your assertion that finding natural gas will affect oil prices doesn't work either. That's like saying if we find a huge coal deposit, gas prices will drop. It won't. They're separate markets.

I hate to break it to you...really I do

But you are misreading your OWN link. Note the little line ont he side that says "Transportation Sector", also note that I was talking about ENERGY, Not OIL!

Ehem, where was I?

Oh yes,

40% of our energy is for electricity production
30% of our energy is for transportation
30% of our energy is for heating

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I hate to break it to you...really I do But you are misreading your OWN link. Note the little line ont he side that says "Transportation Sector", also note that I was talking about ENERGY, Not OIL! Ehem, where was I? Oh yes, 40% of our energy is for electricity production 30% of our energy is for transportation 30% of our energy is for heating

Yes, it lists where oil goes. I thought that's what we were talking about? Remember - coal is used for electricity production. They don't make coal powered cars. Same for nuclear energy.

Energy consumption by sector:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html

10.3% is for heating.

Again, switching everyone's heat to electricity (vs. current 72% nat gas or 21% petroleum) won't affect gas prices. Look where petroleum is going. 69% to transportation. 24% to industry. 5% to heating and 2% to electric power.

Ha ! I have my Mr. Fusion on preorder already. When I get done with the swap, I'll have the first nuke powered Fiero on the block

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Methanol is a nightmare to work with engineering-wise, it destroys seals like crazy, and to make it worse it's very poisonous, even with just skin contact. And, it doesn't really have much more if any energy than ethanol.

Well said. When methanol is absorbed by the body it decomposes into formaldehyde which is absolutely deadly to retinal cells. That's why you go blind from drinking bad moonshine. Not to mention formaldehyde is generally a poison anyway.

Methanol has less energy density than ethanol as well. It's fairly easy to make, but ethanol isn't poisonous unless you drink alot of it.

[This message has been edited by AP2k (edited 06-14-2008).]

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Yes, it lists where oil goes. I thought that's what we were talking about? Remember - coal is used for electricity production. They don't make coal powered cars. Same for nuclear energy. Energy consumption by sector: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html 10.3% is for heating. Again, switching everyone's heat to electricity (vs. current 72% nat gas or 21% petroleum) won't affect gas prices. Look where petroleum is going. 69% to transportation. 24% to industry. 5% to heating and 2% to electric power.

uh boy, I'll see your link and raise you one:

http://www.manhattan-instit...nergymyths/myth1.htm

"Oil usage can be disaggregated to better understand our energy economy. Fuels and technologies accomplish three major purposes: the generation of electricity (roughly 40 percent of our energy economy), raw heat (30 percent), and power for transportation (30 percent). In this three-pronged energy economy, coal, natural gas, and uranium (nuclear power) are the principal fuels for generating electricity. Natural gas and oil are the main fuels for generating raw heat, with gas providing the larger share. And oil is the main fuel for powering the transportation sector."

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-04-2008).]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367642,00.html

quote "Ten years ago I could never have imagined I'd be doing this," says Greg Pal, 33, a former software executive, as he squints into the late afternoon Californian sun. "I mean, this is essentially agriculture, right? But the people I talk to — especially the ones coming out of business school — this is the one hot area everyone wants to get into." He means bugs. To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs — very, very small bacteria — so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as wood chips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil. Unbelievably, this is not science fiction. Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us. Not that Pal is willing to risk it just yet. He gives it a month before the first vehicle is filled up on what he calls "renewable petroleum." After that, he grins, "it's a brave new world." Pal is a senior director of LS9, one of several companies in or near Silicon Valley that have spurned traditional high-tech activities such as software and networking and embarked instead on an extraordinary race to make $140-a-barrel oil from Saudi Arabia obsolete. "All of us here — everyone in this company and in this industry — are aware of the urgency," Pal says.

Got my attention. Now only if it works out.

quote Originally posted by AP2k: Biodiesel is vastly superior, but we don't have the gumption to switch to it. Plus you can get lots more power out of ethanol because it burns faster. A fast-buning fuel will still have a place.

Im just curoius how you think biodiesel is superior?
It has almost the exact same downfalls as ethanol with the added problem of turning into a solid before WATER does.

Anything that reduces demand for petroleum is good (cheaper prices for me ) but better than ethanol?

And dosent ethanol make more power due to its volatility? (octane) which would mean it burns slower?

quote Originally posted by 4-mulaGT: Im just curoius how you think biodiesel is superior? It has almost the exact same downfalls as ethanol with the added problem of turning into a solid before WATER does.

Better lubricity means slower component wear: http://www.biodiesel.org/pd...sheets/Lubricity.PDF

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Better lubricity means slower component wear: http://www.biodiesel.org/pd...sheets/Lubricity.PDF

Thank you, thats exactly what i wanted to see,

quote Originally posted by 4-mulaGT: And dosent ethanol make more power due to its volatility? (octane) which would mean it burns slower?

Ethanol does have what amounts to a higher octane, meaning it has a greater ability to resist knock or ping because it burns slower than pure gasoline. Exhaust gas recirculation reduces ping in a [roughly] similar fashion,by slowing down combustion, BTW.
Ethanol has roughly two thirds of the energy per gallon of pure gasoline, so power and mileage suffer.
We have no choice but to buy 10% ethanol blend here, so along with a higher price per gallon, currently $3.91, we get less mileage from each gallon.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 06-16-2008).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: No. It does have what amounts to a higher octane, meaning its greater ability to reduce knock or ping. But ethanol has roughly two thirds of the energy per gallon of pure gasoline, so power and mileage suffer. We have no choice but to buy 10% ethanol blend here, so along with higher price per gallon, currently $3.91, we get less mileage from each gallon.

I suppose I should be clearer,

"Dosent ethanol have the ABILITY to make more power because of its volatility"

In a spark ignition engine, the burn of gasoline cant be controlled at a certain pressure/temperature, without expensive additives.
since ethanol has a lower volatility, (it dosent ignite by itself or by a hot spot as easily) it can be burned more efficiently, therefore releasing more power than gasoline.

putting ethanol in a OEM gasoline engine is about as retarded as putting diesel in one. you need an ETHANOL engine to actually take advantage of ethanol.

[This message has been edited by 4-mulaGT (edited 06-16-2008).]

Ethanol is NOT the solution. It is not even PART of the solution so can we please all call our Congressmen and women and tell them to give us our subsidies back and make my bag of Orville Redenbacker cheaper..PLEASE!

If you want short term solutions, I'm for this one:
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

The pellets can be replaced at a far lesser cost than gasoline and can be reused about 50 times before replacement is needed. If the replacement process is simple enough that a car owner can do it as easily as changing the oil then we have a viable solution that will NEVER run dry...IF, we go with more NUCLEAR power plants to recycle the Alumina at an affordable rate.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-17-2008).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: It's not crying foul or anything like it. It's simply the truth - the so called "rich who don't pay any taxes"...is a myth. They and corporations pay almost ALL the taxes in this country.

For every corporation doing it right, there's one cheating. Did you know that Ingersoll-Rand (a "$17 billion global diversified company" according to their own website) pays $26,000 a year to maintain a post office box in Bermuda as their corporate headquarters so they don't have to pay $40 million a year (as of 2003) in corporate taxes?

quote Originally posted by Fastback 86: To be fair, we should tell our Congressmen to move the subsidies to a better crop. Corn based Ethanol is a crock, but the entire country of Brazil is running on sugar cane based ethanol because it contains much more energy. It can be a solution, or at least part of one, if you do it right. Corn is not doing it right.

The problem is geographical. Brazil can grow enough sure cane to meet it's needs. We can't.

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-04-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Fastback 86: For every corporation doing it right, there's one cheating. Did you know that Ingersoll-Rand (a "$17 billion global diversified company" according to their own website) pays $26,000 a year to maintain a post office box in Bermuda as their corporate headquarters so they don't have to pay $40 million a year (as of 2003) in corporate taxes?

Then that would mean there are *more* taxes out there to collect, but it does not invalidate my point - the rich and corporations PAY the *vast* majority of the taxes, both by percentage and total dollars.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Then that would mean there are *more* taxes out there to collect, but it does not invalidate my point - the rich and corporations PAY the *vast* majority of the taxes, both by percentage and total dollars.

The one's that aren't cheating. I think I'll look into setting myself up a PO Box somewhere, I'll bet it costs less than my taxes, too.

How much is the government spending funding an oil war? And you guys complain about ethanol subsidies. Nevermind the airlines and automakers, lets just rip apart the ethanol industry because you want to hate something. And how does someone prove that corn is the worst thing to make ethanol out of? Have you made ethanol from everything? Have you made ethanol at all? I've mentioned this before but only the starch in the corn is converted to ethanol. The bran and germ is still available for biodiesel. And farmers are in buisness if you guys are paying attention. I don't see how you can hold it against the ethanol industry for farmers running diesel powered equipment to plant, harvest and transport their crop. They would be doing all of this anyway but it becomes evil when they are shipping it to an ethanol plant instead of a corn syrup plant. The industry is searching every day to make the business more efficient and to use the byproducts, but because the oil industry has had over 100 years you think ethanol can get there in immediately. I don't believe ethanol is the only answer, but the internal combustion engine is not going away, and in case you haven't opened you eyes while driving through the country, corn is what we have.

quote Originally posted by joshua riedl: How much is the government spending funding an oil war?

$0.00

quote Originally posted by Fastback 86: The one's that aren't cheating. I think I'll look into setting myself up a PO Box somewhere, I'll bet it costs less than my taxes, too.

Are you having trouble admitting that corps and rich individuals pay most of the taxes? Because you keep trying to dodge that point.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Are you having trouble admitting that corps and rich individuals pay most of the taxes? Because you keep trying to dodge that point.

Show me the breakdown of federal income by contributors. I don't disbelieve you, but I don't think it's as clear cut as your making it sound.

quote Originally posted by Fastback 86: Show me the breakdown of federal income by contributors. I don't disbelieve you, but I don't think it's as clear cut as your making it sound.

I thought someone did, earlier in this thread?

http://www.yahoo.com/s/902001

Posted this in the other thread but figured it was due here too.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: We can for certain grow enough switchgrass and other cellulosic sources, it takes almost no oil to do that unlike corn which actually consumes more oil to make than the oil it replaces. Yes, a net loss. Why do we use corn, the least efficient and least productive way to make ethanol? It's the absolutely worst choice. Why? Because Archer Daniels Midland is the world's largest corn grower and they paid Congress to spend billions of our taxpayer dollars to subsidize using corn for ethanol. The solution is simple: Cut off the subsidies, period. Make corn compete with all the other sources of ethanol, every single one of which is a better choice than corn. JazzMan

True, but why would you?

Sugar cane has multiple uses like Raw Sugar, Molasses, Treacle, etc.

What else can you do with grass? Any product that has a single commercial use is subject to the ups and downs of that market. Additionally, ethanol can not be transported far distances the way oil can. Oil is transported in pipelines by use of water. Water and oil don't mix so you can separate them at the other end of the line. Ethanol mixes readily with water so you have to ship it via rail car or truck. This is too expensive for large scale use. You must essentially use the ethanol where you make it.

It will always have a useful purpose but it is not the solution to our need for energy independence.

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-04-2008).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I thought someone did, earlier in this thread?

Nope.